skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When will this not be the case? Most companies use a lot of open source, in order to ship quickly. I suppose the thesis of main link is, that's no less so the case -- but here we are, building UIs with Vue/React/Angular/etc. Tons and tons of open source tech to enable shipping more quickly.
Walmartlabs?
Another thing to note is that one of Robinhood's main investors from their last round, 'D1 Capital', is also down 20% this year [1] with a fund size of 20 billion, so that's a 4 billion dollar hole for them to recover from.

I've only seen mention of Citadel but the short squeeze on these stocks (blocked stocks) continuing could literally have made D1 Capital explode.

In the aftermath of this fiasco, perhaps Robinhood can get away with a small fine. Even a billion would be less than the collective sum all hedge funds involved could have lost had this upward price movement continued.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/dan-sundh...
Despite all the individual cases of people claiming WFH makes them more productive, in the aggregate employees are not. In the particular data I've seen, new employees and more junior employees suffer significantly, even while more senior engineers hold steady or improve, perhaps because their responsibilities shift to more easily quantifiable metrics than knowledge sharing, mentoring, and onboarding.
Your post got removed because it's a repost: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l747eg/cita...

Don't spread misinformation.
Nah,

Corporations (and the mob) generally stole the funds of the pension and used them. And they were promised pensions in line with prevailing wages, which were higher.
I don’t think anyone in the West disagrees that Ant and Alibaba are big, possibly too big.

The problem is the means. The Western viewpoint is that it smells like the ends don’t justify the means, and China hardly has anything resembling rule of law.
Why is this an unacceptable choice? Yes, accepting PRs from the broader community and spending time on them has a good chance of making the product superior over time. But just like how it is probably good for me to understand the impact of my purchasing choices on the environment, I can't listen to it all the time. I don't think it is unreasonable to say "in this context, I do not have the bandwidth to manage unsolicited advice from others". That isn't "being close minded". It isn't saying that nobody else has good ideas. It is saying that you are busy right now.
> arm's length transactions are a means of providing truth to falsity, and perfectly crafted statements are in the same category

Bailouts aren't arms-length transactions. They're highly involved.

Melvin Capital isn't just a GameStop short. It has billions of other assets. But not all of those are liquid. Margin calls require liquidity, and Melvin didn't have many options other than fire selling the rest of their portfolio and taking a private bailout at exorbitant terms (but less egregious than the losses they would have incurred in a fire sale).

From Citadel's perspective, why on earth would they assume the short positions? They're in the red. That is Melvin's investors' problem. The second-order problem, that of avoiding a fire sale of remaining assets, is what the bailout prevented.

With respect to Melvin, I'm blown away that these trades were executed as unhedged shorts.
Why? Because an individual has difference circumstances they are automatically "privileged"?
That (and the related sibling's comments) is a fair argument, but admittedly not what thought when I first pictured the term "mobbing".

For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just.

However, mobbing, to me, is when the random internet gets out its pitchforks and finds something to dogpile on, even though they might not have been affected personally.
Also PUMP, NOW, OPEN, TD (probably as in TD Ameritrade), RIDE, etc. Shows some of the pitfalls of naive text mining.
There is a specific case where you start a sentence with 'but': when you want to give someone time to accept the previous statement before demolishing it. This is what we all know, and we all agree that we see it. But what we know is not right, and here's why.

If a person is using And and But equally, they just like the mental pause between their statements. The period is more of an ellipsis. If your reader needs a mental pause before an And, before a second piece of information, maybe your information is too dense and you should free the new information to stand alone. Possibly in a new paragraph.

As in, "The other thing that's cool about this process is that it also does blah. Which is useful for these reasons..."

I don't know how other people develop a theory of a system, but if you want to change mine, if I want to change mine, I have to 'walk into it' see what's wrong with it, deconstruct it and put it back together the new way. If you don't bring me through this, I'm going to make you stop talking, back up, and walk me through it anyway. Otherwise your next best outcome is that later than night when I'm brushing my teeth I realize you're right and we pick it back up tomorrow. If it's in writing, I can only make you back up by skipping back a few paragraphs, or writing a response that you may or may see. If your proposal is too woo, I'll just be writing you off entirely.
Right now everyone seems to be hell-bent on ensuring that it is the retail investor who ends up holding the bag.
>So to protect the electorate (!) from being grossly misled, many European countries in the aftermath of the 1940s decided to counterbalance the freedom of speech with rules what is not freedom of speech.

That's a very generous way of looking at it. In the West, I would say that it would be more accurate to look at it through the lens of the cold war, though. Communism and radicalism were to be prevented and so freedom of speech was necessarily curtailed. In the East, it was likewise curtailed, ostensibly to 'protect the youth' and 'prevent disinformation' but with more potential for immediate consequences.

>Is that ever in the public debate in the USA? Reasonable limits to free speech?

Sure. It's been debated a lot, actually. Laws have changed significantly over the last hundred years, almost entirely to the expansion of free speech side.
The Parler incident sent a message across the tech industry that this kind of behavior is acceptable.

Whether you liked Parler or not, the lynching of Parler was ultimately a loss for everyone for the precedent that it set.
er, top
I don't think the WSB crowd has a clue what they are doing. They practically turned GME into a ponzi scheme, encouraging more and more people to pump up the price by buying it.

It was funny when it was just hedge funds losing millions of dollars because they shorted it, but eventually all the WSB people buying the stock are going to be stuck with something worthless once it inevitably comes back down to Earth.

Trading on GME probably should have suspended a while ago. Now we're stuck in a situation where RH has blocked purchases, and people are going to blame them when the stock tanks and they lose their money rather than themselves for buying ridiculously overpriced stock to begin with.
I asked a supporter of the Iranian government (from Bahrain) why Iran had restrictions on their democracy like only allowing approved candidates to run.

To which he replied, "Because you can't let a camel herder become President."

Deciding "people can't think for themselves" is a slippery slope. And you've got to be talking about a pretty serious ill to balance those scales. (Take it from a country that had a camel herder for a President for four years...)
Aren't we complaining about a kind of circuit breaker here?
WallStreetBets Is Back on Discord
I know this is beside the point... It’s a bin for medical waste in the form of things that can break the skin. Used needles etc. It’s a special bin that once completely closed is intentionally quite difficult to open again.
Wormholes may be lurking in the universe, and we could locate them
Can one buy stocks through Vanguard?
A rating is not a thing that an app deserves. It's a datapoint published by an app store to help its users make decisions about which apps to use.
You could store filters generic enough that any software can skip over filters it doesn't recognize (e.g. you store filter type uuid, filter data length, then arbitrary filter parameters), have some open registry where you can get official filter uuids in return for an example implementation. Of course not everyone will register every filter, so the format should probably store the image once unfiltered and once with all filter applied, that way if a program doesn't recognize or implement some filter it can still fall back to the destructively filtered version. But of course that increases file size, which may or may not be a concern.
Very fair. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the math as well - my understanding was 24B was the cost to decommission 350 platforms which comes out to about 68M a piece. I can't claim to know enough to judge whether it could be done drastically cheaper, but yes I'm sure there is some inflation in costs
I call this "tightly-coupled-and-decentralized" and I hate it because it involves all of the pain of microservices with none of the upside.
> This stock is not supported on Robinhood.

This is a jabberwocky sentence. It is syntactically correct but there is nothing in the real world to which it could be referring. Brokers do not "support" stocks.
Retail didn't do jack to the market makers and Melvin capital isn't a market maker.

So many people here who have no idea what the hell is going on, and yet are so confident.
Don't want to contradict you, but here is how I feel as a drive-by PR-er:

1. Some projects have a list of goal and non-goals. Rejecting a PR because I didn't read the non-goals is perfectly fine and should be encouraged.

2. I agree. But can't this be solved by putting the "burden of PR" on the PR-er? A long checklist of "I have read this" and "I have tested this" should raise the PR bar high enough to make the code review cost worth it.

3. I understand that bad people are a problem on the Internet, but this feels orthogonal to the "no PR policy". Won't those people "do shit" anyway?
Webull no longer restricting GME, AMC, or KOSS
Mozilla tries to find a niche to survive. But I really think that personalized adverts are a better thing that random adverts.
VS Code Workbench.tree.indent Setting
Yes, I am 100% assuming that Robinhood is acting is "good faith" (the fact that I'm defending Robinhood feels gross to me).

If Robinhood just wanted to make money, they would have let this continue. People like to complain that RH gets payment for order flow, but they just knowingly cut off that order flow.

It feels like Occam's Razor should apply here. Either:

1. Robinhood felt that it's long term prospects were better if it's users weren't able to gamble and most likely lose all of their money, thus being scared away from the stock market forever.

2. There is a secret cobal that Robinhood, who was previous the "bad guy" of the financial world, is now in and tricked it's users into buying a stock that would be worthless just so that Robinhood could shut of trading at the peak, and let their secret hedge-fund buddies make a ton of money.

I'm not inclined to believe the conspiracy theory when there is a more more reasonable option.
What's optimal for a 9 year old schoolchild isn't necessarily optimal for a 30 year old professional.
It's strange that you're ignoring the fact that if an app does something bad that affects many users, those many users will, reasonably, review the app poorly. You're implying that all sudden influxes of bad reviews are somehow illegitimate, which is a confusing position.
Funny how that works. An algorithm, a computer, can ban your entire virtual presence at a whim, with no recourse. (talking about Google obviously).

But the opinions of incensed humans aren't worth the rollback it takes to "correct" the problem.

The entirety of google is a money making machine intelligence serving it's few wealthy owners, and absolutely disrupting and destroying everything else.

We need to take the torch to our big tech overlords.
Windows Terminal Preview 1.6 Release
Robinhood Blocks Reddit Traders
You can still close any positions you have open, as of 3 PM Eastern.
What about people that already lost money because of this movement? On the other side, on the sell side there might be lots of people who were holding waiting for a higher price that was driven down by the blocking of new purchases, cratering their gains. Is that right by the rules of the game?
AOC has no chill
You might want to right-justify the numeric columns to more easily compare.
Not allowing users to purchase shares and also selling owned shares against the wishes of users will have that effect.
> Another issue is that the github pull request model is not very "gitonic". There are much saner systems like sourcehut.

That is an interesting observation. Can you elaborate on what you mean? Thanks!
> Those are buyers and sellers as well as market makers.

Nope, pretty much just market makers.
This is a bit of a dense question - but being shut out of trading a stock doesn't physically threaten someones life. So not exactly analogous to the twitter situation you are clearly alluding to.
Anti-trust law is a far cleaner way to approach that, with far fewer unintended consequences.
Buzzy New Social Media Site Pillowfort Is Riddled with Basic Bugs
Brad Feld: The GameStop Phenomenon
To me "The Left" means the set of beliefs more than it means the set of believers, but you can't have a belief without a believer.
Oh yes they do
Yeah, I keep seeing this claim posted that Citadel owns Robinhood, but I can't find any evidence to back it up. The Wikipedia pages for each don't mention the other.
According to the RH blog post they are allowing people to close their position, just not open or expand one.
Yeah this is the central argument and I don't think we have a clear answer yet.
High enough human population leads to continuous pandemics. It is law of nature and can not be changed.
Yea, because that's been working great thus far.
>even though they might not have been affected personally

It's unrealistic to imply that people shouldn't share opinions of behavior if they weren't directly and personally affected by that behavior. You're also making a large assumption that cases you would define as "mobbing" consist of a significant portion of people unaffected.
Schwab has a note that they're limiting volumme on specific stocks today. I agree with the point that any of the major brokers would have done the same, but I think that's more an indictment of all of these organizations than a defense of RH.
I was completely unaware this was a thing: that means there can be a "run on the bank" if all of the customers wanted to sell on a short time period, and they don't actually have the shares to cover the sales?
It's like not allowing me to buy SPY in March because it was so volatile. F-ck that.
"movement from platforms to protocols" is essentially anti-trust laws codified
No, it's not unusual. And, in fact, the exchanges HAVE used brief halts in trading to curb volatility in GameStop stock. But those were done in accordance with standard policies that simply reference a certain amount of change within a certain timeframe.

What Robinhood has done is apparently to ALLOW trading, but only selling, not buying. At a time when a close partner of theirs is at significant risk if the stock price goes up.
Maybe someone higher up could be losing lots, much more than what Robinhood could be valued during the IPO but that would be USD 12 bi...
A middle ground between nullable and optional types: Semi-Null Pointers
But how many of the accounts have larger positions in GME than equity? It doesn't make sense to margin call or liquidate someone who is good for the whole amount. Also if someone has some leverage it's not reasonable to liquidate them completely.
That is an interesting argument. My gut disagrees but purely rationally, I can't find any fault with it. This is something I will be pondering.
You should probably include the correction Shane made later:

https://twitter.com/shane_riordan/status/1354787975058616320

"Citadel isn’t a majority owner of RH, but they DO pay RH a hefty figure to the app for consumer data. On top of the money paid to bail out Melvin.

All they have to do is threaten to pull that money for data from RH and RH pulls new share purchases of $GME.

It’s wild."
It's a referendum of the states, as was agreed to by the states when the union was formed.

It doesn't have to be people voting directly. It shouldn't be.
There is no such recording. A reporter who interviewed an aide of Nixon for his autobiography claimed that that aide said that (but he only claimed so after the aide had died).
It won't. Everyone who has an account at RH has contractually agreed not to bring or participate in a class action suit and has contractually agreed to arbitration.
> But I would guess most end user-facing things, like GNU, Linux, VLC etc. were built by academics or hobbyists, or foundations.

I think some of those things from the "golden age" were built by people working on the clock, in salaried full-time positions, at companies that had businesses separate from that open source product, but which used the open source product for that business.

They were getting paid to solve problems and get things done, and if they got it done with open source, that was fine, the company wasn't trying to make money off of the software that solved the problem.

(Also by university faculty getting paid by the university).
> The customers are the businesses on the other end, in Robinhood's case the market makers who are paying for the right to front-run trades.

Front-running is super illegal. You're referring to payment for order flow (PFOF), in which a sell-side party like Citadel pays Robinhood for the right to route your order to the exchange. But there's a catch: Citadel is allowed to take the other side of your trade without routing it to an exchange, but it legally has to match the exchange price or cut you a discount. If Citadel can't do either, your order MUST be routed to an exchange.

PFOF makes up a somewhat negligible source of revenue for no-fee/discount brokerages. The bulk of revenue comes from a much more mundane source: interest rate spreads. Earn X% interest on customer cash deposits while providing customers less than X% interest on their deposits.

If your order isn't making its way to an exchange, PFOF isn't your problem, and you shouldn't be day trading. Your real problem is that the professionals think you over-bid/under-asked to such an extent that they're willing to cut you a deal just to take the other side of your trade. Unless you're a professional options trader, betting against professional market makers will cost you a lot more money than the imaginary transaction costs would have.

(This is just a summary of an old HN favorite: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2019/6/26/how-brokerages-make-mone...)
ADHD-resistant sticky note that changes color and font often to not disappear
Where's your source?
True, I am not interested in coming in to the office more then once a quarter.
Robinhood can do whatever it wants and people can in response give it a 1 star rating. They can also complain about it not being a good platform to use. Freedom goes both ways.

You can also complain about Twitter or give its app a low rating or just stop using it.
Pinecone emerges from stealth with $10M to accelerate AI workloads
For better or worse, his writing style is dense, and somewhat self-referential, as he builds and reuses a custom linguistic-metaphorical concept-stack. While he doesn't speak quite that densely, the voice and technique remains pretty similar (and as much as I'm a fan, I must admit that his elocution isn't particularly compelling, although perhaps I'm biased by the poor quality of many recordings).

I would humbly advocate pushing through regardless, as I found the material to be profound; I'd also suggest "Synergetics" [0], which employs a similar style, but is much more STEM-oriented than the "Spaceship Earth" quasi-narrative. But having said that, I don't blame anyone who finds the style too tedious; I have a similar experience every time I try to read 18th/19th-century political economy (Smith + Marx).

[0] https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/08/buckminster-fuller-...
I agree about halting stock orders. That's dodgy as fuck.

As for re-shorting, my issue is there is no evidence of that so far. The fact its "some guy on twitter's anon mate" makes me think it's total bs.
Financial institutions are generally very tightly regulated. A lot of things are set by law, not contract. I have no particular knowledge in this domain, but I am sure we all will learn more about when the law ends and discretion begins by following the news about this lawsuit.
You do this clearly, because if you don't give people a good explanation, they'll find one elsewhere. And the person giving that explanation probably doesn't care about preserving your reputation.
One more company off the shortlist of potential targets for the PSTH SPAC.

Looking more and more like it’s going to be something like Subway.
Apple is blocking ratings of Robinhood on AppStore. Coincidence much ?
"Its a big club and you ain't in it" - George Carlin
Check an IP Address
An easy way to find out (security) information about an IP address from a shell.
Fancy a flutter? Google to allow real money gambling worldwide
Wwwwayland sucks (2018)
By plain text, do you have in mind CRLF or LF, and for structured data, do you have in mind YAML, JSON or one of the umpty others?
Virtually all trading platforms have blocked users from opening positions on these symbols. Why is Robinhood being singled out?

Also, considering 99.9% of people jumping on the bandwagon have absolutely no idea what they're doing, they'll probably thank RH down the road for preventing them from losing all their money.
Removing dead code is incredibly valuable. Even in time-consuming environments with highly effectful languages it can mean the difference between pulling in and maintaining old/archaic dependencies or not. I wish more of our static analysis tools for non-functional languages had better concepts of purity. There are so many places where it fails in languages without this concept. eg: Java annotations can change the behavior of a method from a simple getter to something else entirely with hooks to be used/referenced at runtime.

One place I have found that static analysis fails is with API contexts. Either they get it wrong and offer to remove API elements or they get it less-wrong and just don't touch anything that can be exported. Granted getting it right would require all usages of the API or a blessed list of things we know we want to keep ... in which case we are potentially back at our source code as a source of truth anyway.

Another interesting hole is "do we keep code that is only referenced by tests?" In some cases, it makes sense but it's definitely a knob that the user needs to adjust manually so far as I have seen.
The Craziness Goes On
Read history. He gave a promise to his army that after beating muslims because it will take long time. All will come back home. Thats why his army was unstopable. He promissed that they will return with what they gather. Another thing is that sometimes he was giving all the captured treasures to his men. India was not his point of war. Budism and all your story has nothing to do with that.
To keep power you have to accomplete your promisses given to your men.
Robinhood was always owned by the same Wall Street fat cats its users hate. They even sell the data on what retail investors are buying in real time to allow industry investors to take advantage of it.

If anything it’s amazing that it took this long for anyone to notice.
A few articles that came up in google:

https://psmag.com/magazine/a-patent-boogieman-with-the-poten...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2018/06/01/after-10...